Skip to main content

Here's a thought....

Maybe I am just naive, but if we are going to have to live with a central bank issuing and manipulating our national currency, why not let the American people go directly to the discount window and eliminate the usury-loving, fee-grabbing banker-broker middle men??

I think I could handle having a reasonable line of available credit, especially if collateralized, directly available to American citizens
at say...1.5%. Aren't we already being stuck with the bill for the failures of a credit system run by a central bank in the interest of...the banks.

Seriously, is there a reason why the FED can't be made a direct lender to consumers (aside from the entire industry of "shylocks" * and cozy financiers and whores on the Hill who control the levers, get rich from it, and then walk between the acid raindrops they seeded)?

[* Preemptive Political Correctness Alert : I use this term like underworld slang for 'pound of flesh' loan sharks, in NO way shape or form with any anti-Jewish connotation.]


Better yet, how about we (the people - our government) take actual unambiguous control of our money supply, rather than continue leaving it in the hands of private bankers. [*The Federal Reserve is, yes, a PRIVATE bank backed by a handful of concentrated BANKING INTERESTS.]

How nice it would be to be able to go borrow United States Notes rather than go to credit issuers peddling increasingly-sketchy Federal Reserve Notes. Our government is supposed to be the backer of Fed currency anyway, since we ditched the gold standard, so why not just let people directly borrow at 1% from the sole guarantor of our currency...our government. Isn't that what the banks do anyway and then add a fat price tag?

It is the PEOPLE's money......isn't it?? Should it be??

Comments

Anonymous said…
Would that be JUST like me writing Checks?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...